Convenient Rape and the Senate

Lefties care about rape when it is convenient to do so. If they don’t have to go out of their way to check pesky facts or give up a decent movie script *polankispupportingdouchebags* or take a hit in the abortion debate or defend a conservative woman, rape is bad.

Currently there’s a meme floating around regarding the Franken Amendment. Just to give you all some background, this started with the Jamie Leigh Jones case. Here’s the backstory:

In legal papers Jones, who was 20 at the time, says she was fed a knockout drug while drinking with KBR firefighters.

“When she awoke the next morning still affected by the drug, she found her body naked and severely bruised, with lacerations to her vagina and anus, blood running down her leg, her breast implants ruptured and her pectoral muscles tornâ€š which would later require reconstructive surgery. Upon walking to the rest room, she passed out again,” the papers say.

Awful. Horrible. Inexcusable. And every single one of those bastards should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. I’d possibly argue for castration. However, I am a rape survivor and may be a little biased on that front. Shoot the bastards for all I care.

The purpose of the amendment is to bar the Defense Department from contracting with any company that requires arbitration to settle disputes with employees. The problem with this doesn’t lie in the protection of rape victims – there is none. In fact, arbitration is not binding in cases of rape, and it doesn’t limit her ability to go after them on a criminal level – she has already successfully done so. She chose to work for Halliburton/KBR and signed the agreement. (If you even try to interpret that as “she asked for it” I’ll punch you in the face. I clearly mean that she signed off on the arbitration, and in that, she did have a choice. Not that I blame her, it’s standard at a lot of organizations.) The problem is totally and completely unrelated to the rape protection pretense they’re floating out there.

Jon Stewart failed to see how anyone could think this was a bad idea. What could those idiot Republicans possibly mean by defending this? Obviously this means that they advocate rape!

Uh, no. Not even a little bit. Here‘s what Senator Corker’s office had to say:

“This vote has been grossly misunderstood, oversimplified, and misreported. Senator Corker, the father of two daughters, believes what happened to Jamie Leigh Jones is abhorrent and that the culprits should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law; further, he agrees that rape, battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress should not be arbitrated, but the Franken amendment went far beyond the ill it was trying to remedy to encompass most possible employment claims,” said Laura Lefler Herzog, communications director for Corker.

A badly worded piece of legislation. That’s the problem here folks. You can’t paint with a broad stroke all the time. What was that worn out “scalpel” thing Obama always talked about with the budget? Yeah, that applies sometimes. And here is what Senator Burr’s office had to say:

As current federal law states and the courts have already upheld in the Jones case, arbitration agreements are non-binding when it comes to criminal acts, like rape. Unfortunately, the Franken amendment was a cynical attempt by the trial lawyers to eliminate arbitration agreements, which limit their fees, behind the guise of protecting women.”

I do believe that Senator Burr is accurate. There is an ulterior motive: Using what was a legitimate concern brought to the table by Jamie Leigh Jones as an excuse to put more money in the pockets of plaintiff lawyers. And maybe to give the illusion that Franken sometimes takes off the diaper and stops coloring with crayons long enough to play Senator.

Jones was able to seek revenge in court. She was not denied her turn before a jury. In fact, the courts ruled in her favor. Let’s be honest: This is not, nor was it ever, about Jamie Leigh Jones, rape or women on any level. This is not even about: justice or anything but lining plaintiff lawyers’ pockets. From Heritage:

This amendment is a move towards the plaintiff bar’s longstanding goal of banning dispute arbitration. But the allegations in this case are so egregious that it makes it difficult for Members of Congress to stand up for the rights of law-abiding employers.

Making it easier for lawyers to take their cut appeals to lawyers. But it comes at the expense of job creation. The money lawyers take undercuts healthy businesses and discourages new entrepreneurs from starting their own small businesses. Why would anyone start a business if they expected to spend most of the money they earn on legal bills? Why take that risk? Congress should not let the trial bar pre-judge America’s job creators guilty as charged.

This is what we pay our Senators for, folks. Let’s use rape as a way to push a political agenda through! But, if it involves Polanski and a 13-year-old girl, it’s not rape-rape.